For these reasons, Washington refrains from providing Ukraine with missiles that could target Russia

WASHINGTON -

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's call for President Joe Biden's administration to hand over MLRS missiles to his country to counter heavy Russian bombing in the eastern Donbas region has left the dilemma of wanting to support Kiev on the one hand, and fears of an unwanted escalation with Moscow. on the other hand.

The strong support that Ukraine enjoys in the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, makes it easier for President Zelensky to order more weapons.

Which prompted President Joe Biden to say clearly that "the United States will not send missile systems to Ukraine that can strike Russia."

The US administration, which a few days ago allocated nearly $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine, fears that it and its NATO allies will be drawn into a direct conflict with Moscow.

In an interview with Al Jazeera Net about the latest developments in the military situation inside Ukraine, John Spencer, a military expert and a theorist of modern wars, said that "Biden's decision is primarily political, as he does not want direct escalation with Russia."

The dangers of supplying Ukraine with advanced offensive weapons

"We will provide the Ukrainians with more advanced missile systems and ammunition, which will allow them to more accurately hit key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine," Biden wrote in an article published in the New York Times. Biden reiterated that his country "will not send to Ukraine missile systems that can strike Russia."

A senior US official told a news briefing that Washington would send HIMARS high-precision missile systems to Ukraine.

He added that Ukrainian officials assured the Biden administration that the missiles would only be used to repel Russian forces in Ukraine and not to attack Russian territory.

Alexander Downes, director of the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at George Washington University and an expert on international conflicts, believes that "Biden's decision contradicts reports that the United States is considering sending MLRS and ATAMS (HIMARS) systems." These launchers are capable of firing the US Army's ATACM tactical missile system, which has a range of 300 km, while the more widely used MLRS ("MLRS") MLRS) with a range of between 32 and 70 km, which Washington sends to Ukraine."

In an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, Downes indicated that "Biden may have spoken accurately, as the latest reports indicate that if Washington decides to send the MLRS or ATAMCM (HIMARS) systems, it is possible that To Ukraine, it will not be equipped with devices that allow firing long- and medium-range missiles, only short-range munitions. These missiles can hit targets in Russia depending on where they are (as is the case in the Kharkiv region)."

What does Russia consider a declaration of war?

Over the past three months, Biden and his advisers have at times sent mixed messages about Washington's goals of helping Ukraine defend itself from a Russian invasion.

During his visit to Poland last April, Biden indicated the need to remove the Russian president from power in Moscow.

Days later, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the United States wanted to see Russia "weakened to the point that it can't do the things it did in the invasion of Ukraine."

On both occasions, the White House retracted official statements about these positions.

American confusion and conflicting messages about its goals of supporting Ukraine militarily leave experts at a loss.

John Spencer told Al Jazeera Net that "the National Security Council Assistant to the President has changed its position on supplying Ukraine with missiles that may reach the Russian depth. And here we are not talking about Tomahawk missiles that can reach the Kremlin building, but we are talking about medium-range missiles whose range does not exceed 300 km." ".

Spencer pointed out, "The launch of short-range missiles, with a range not exceeding 70 kilometers from areas close to the Russian-Ukrainian border, can hit targets inside Russia, and we do not know whether the Biden administration has placed any restrictions on the sites of use of these missiles so that their mission becomes primarily defensive. and targeting Russian targets inside Ukrainian territory.

The dangers of not arming Ukraine with these missiles

For his part, Elliot Cohen, a former defense official and professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, attacked the Biden administration's reluctance to provide missiles to Ukraine that would enable it to strike targets inside Russia.

Cohen stated that the more armed the Ukrainians were, the sooner the war would come to an end, and the sooner the suffering would stop.

In a series of tweets, Cohen criticized Biden's reluctance to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles, and said, "The president's statement that the United States will not give the Ukrainians weapons capable of bringing war to Russian soil is an act of strategic incoherence and incompetence, as it is morally reprehensible as well." ".

He continued his tweets by saying, "When a small country is fighting for its own survival, and in this case its independence, it makes no sense to prolong the suffering, and to appear frightened. But this is what the Biden administration has done. Biden is undermining our standing with our allies, confusing our bureaucracy and weakening Ukrainian morale. Not only is it wrong, it is a very stupid decision, and I hope Congress and public opinion will make it pay for that hesitation."

For his part, Professor Downes noted his appreciation that “if the United States sends these systems to Ukraine, it will be on the condition that they are used on the battlefield and rear areas within Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. Because Zelensky has a strong interest in maintaining the flow of weapons, M MLRS is more useful on the current battlefield, and it would be willing to accept that limitation."